Hurricane Ozzy was all hype. It came with a lot of warnings, but by the time it hit shore it wasn't even a tropical storm. After a night of heavy rain, it had turned to patchy clouds by late afternoon.
The damage is difficult to assess. Ozzy's original alliance with Keith makes perfect sense. A physically dominant player usually needs to be alligned with another physical player in order to go deep. No one has won every individual immunity. The danger is getting whacked as soon as you lose one. Being aligned with another physical player offers some protection. He's still in the game and can go on an immunity run and retaliate for you. This is how Tom Westman won Palau. Tom took 5 of 7 immunity challenges, but his allaince with Ian protected him when he was vulnerable. And, he explicitly (and memorably) threatened wavering allies (Katie) with this argument at key junctures.
Anyway, it's clear from Ozzy and Keith's conversation that they are thinking along the same lines (they need each other to dominate immunity and go deep). There are two issues:
1. Why does Keith get to keep his ally (Whitney) while Ozzy has already given up two (Semhar, and now Elyse)?
2. Redemption Island does offer the physically competitive player some hope to get back. In fact, it might offer even more protection for Ozzy than Keith can.
So, despite Ozzy's newfound admiration for his tribemates, there are reasons to be suspicious that his alliance with Keith will hold. However, Ozzy wears his heart on his sleeve. He probably sincere about his admiration for his tribe. I'm just giving reasons why it might waiver later.
I understand why Ozzy apologized to his tribe - it was in his interests for the time being. However, I don't understand why Jim was disappointed and demanding of an apology. Ozzy didn't cross any lines. He doesn't owe Jim anything. Jim's arrogance knows no bounds.
Brandon is no Hantz. By now, Russell would have both Coach's and Ozzy's immunity idol. The comparisons to his uncle are superficial.
Again, a pair of decent players have disappointed me. Sophie and Rick "discovered" that Christine is angry with them. What the heck did they expect? As for Christine's one-finger salute: classless. But, what more should I expect?
Last email, I said Coach sounds like Voltaire compared to the others. It happened again. I thought Coach made superior arguments as compared to Albert. He convinced me voting Mikayala was the right play, and, more importantly, he convinced Rick. That was one of the more suspenseful tribal councils in a long time, and ended with the an "I love you, man" exchange between Coach and Brandon. I was out of my chair laughing. That is great TV. This is the best season since Heroes vs. Villains and Coach (who I'm no fan of) is a big reason why!
Allow me to tick off a few Survivor facts:
- Jenna was 21 when she won Amazon - and she had to win the last two immunities to do it.
- Amber and Parvati were already 25 when they won, and for both, it was their second appearance on the show (so, they had each failed on the show once before).
- Natalie was 26, and sitting next to the notorious Russell and a hearthrob surgeon when she won.
- The rest of the female winners were well above 25.
- Ergo, in the history of Survivor, one female aged 18-24 has won. That's 1 out of 22 winners.
Should we expect only 1 out of 22 winners to be females aged 18-24? On the average season are 1 out of 22 contestants females aged 18-24? I'd say the number of female contestants aged 18-24 is much higher than 1 in 22. Why are they so disproportionately represented in the winner's circle?
Two last data points:
- Mikayala is 22.
- Edna said to the camera while holding her vote for Mikayala (I'm paraphrasing): "I hope being on the show has helped your future modeling career."
Can Edna's comment provide any clues to these questionsr?
For the record, Sophie could be another exception to this rule. But, she doesn't fit the same profile that most of the 18-24 year olds on this show have.
Unitl next episode.
No comments:
Post a Comment